| fresh~horses 2005-12-13, 12:59 am |
| The Globe & Mail article on the Canadian Pharmacists Assoc. & Canadian
Medical Association attempt to block the Canadian Medical Association
Journal publishing the article about pharmacists' interrogation of
women wanting the morning-after pill:
"{The editor of the Canadian Medical Association Journal} said the
Canadian Pharmacists Association learned of the {{Zee: negative}}
article before it went to press. The association complained to the
Canadian Medical Association, which in turn told the journal it could
not publish the material gathered by the women who attempted to
purchase the drug."
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/serv...cma1212/BNStor=
y/National/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>From a reader comment followiing the Globe and Mail story:
"Prescription data streams from the computer systems of community
pharmacies with scant regard for physician and patient confidentiality.
Commercial data compilers then sell this data and related analyses."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Canadian Medical Association Journal article questioning the
pharmacists interrogation of women who want the morning after pill:
"Women asked for names, addresses, sexual history".
http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full...HITS=3D10&hits=
=3D10&RESULTFORMAT=3D&fulltext=3DPlan+B&andorexactfulltext=3Dand&searchid=
=3D1134437924878_4728&stored_search=3D&FIRSTINDEX=3D0&sortspec=3Ddate&resou=
rcetype=3D1&journalcode=3Dcmaj
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The editorial autonomy of the Canadian Medical Assoc Journal. an
editorial today from the journal:
http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/rapidpdf/cmaj.051608v1
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
CMA faces censorship confrontation
By HELEN BRANSWELL
Monday, December 12, 2005 Posted at 6:55 PM EST
Canadian Press
Toronto - The Canadian Medical Association Journal has charged its
owner, the Canadian Medical Association, with interfering with the
editorial independence of the journal over a news report on the way
pharmacies were handling sales of Plan B, the so-called morning-after
pill.
In an editorial slated for the Jan. 3 issue but released on-line
Monday, journal editor John Hoey announced he has struck a blue-ribbon
panel to draw a clear line for the CMA on the issue of editorial
autonomy.
"That interface between us, the journal, and the owners needs to be
fortified and strengthened and understood, I think, by the CMA," Mr.
Hoey said in an interview.
"We're trying to be a reputable journal."
Advertisements
<A TARGET=3D"_blank"
HREF=3D"http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;23991269;6958408;c?http://english.tou=
r2korea.com/Event/event_popup.asp?oid=3D509"><IMG
SRC=3D"http://ads.globeandmail.com/images/partners/koreaNationalTourism/200=
51202/korea_120x120.jpg"
BORDER=3D0></A>
click here
ad1
click here
The panel will be chaired by Jerome Kassirer, former editor-in-chief of
the New England Journal of Medicine. Other members are Donald
Redelmeier, a medical professor at the university of Toronto; and Frank
Davidoff, editor emeritus of the Annals of Internal Medicine.
Andr=E9 Picard, the Globe and Mail's health reporter, was initially
named to the panel. But late Monday, Mr. Picard said in an e-mail that
he had resigned because participation could put him in a conflict of
interest situation.
Officials of the Canadian Medical Association were not immediately
available for comment.
The conflict stems from a piece of investigative reporting by the news
staff of the journal on the information pharmacists around the country
were demanding of women asking to purchase levonorgestrel, sold under
the brand name Plan B.
Since earlier this year the drug, once available through prescription
only, has been sold on a behind-the-counter basis, meaning women can
get it from a pharmacist without a prescription. The goal was to
improve access to the drug, which must be taken within 72 hours of
intercourse to prevent pregnancy.
The journal asked a woman in each province and territory to try to buy
the drug. A number reported pharmacists demanded and entered into a
computer database personal information such as the woman's name and
address.
That is not common practice for sale of other behind-the-counter drugs,
such as cold or sinus medications containing codeine.
Mr. Hoey said the Canadian Pharmacists Association learned of the
article before it went to press. The association complained to the
Canadian Medical Association, which in turn told the journal it could
not publish the material gathered by the women who attempted to
purchase the drug.
"It's the first time they've actually censored something," said Mr.
Hoey, who has had a number of run-ins with the CMA over the decade he's
edited the journal.
The journal dropped the material from its informal survey but did
publish an article on the practice of gathering personal information
from people attempting to buy the drug.
In the wake of publication, pharmacists in Ontario have been asked to
stop collecting the data after the province's privacy commissioner
complained about the practice.
Mr. Hoey said sporadic tensions between the journal and the association
often stem from misunderstandings on the part of CMA board members
about the meaning of editorial independence.
"They understand that this is a journal and independent. But
independence for them has limits - which then castrates the meaning
of independence."
1.
Helen Fisher from Toronto, Canada writes: Is anyone surprised?
Congrats to Editor Hoey for airing the issue and attempting to get a
clear line drawn.
* Posted Dec. 12, 2005 at 5:06 PM EST
* Link to Comment
2.
pran manga from ottawa, Canada writes: Editorial independence is
of fundamental importance and must be maintained at all times. The CMA
can always submit a letter to theeditor to make its own opinion on any
issueknown to the reader of the journal. Censoring material is wrong
because it thereby hides or fails to disclose its opinions to the
public and disallows the public from learning about certain issues.
Dr.Hoey has no choice but to stand up for the journal's
independence.
* Posted Dec. 12, 2005 at 5:50 PM EST
* Link to Comment
3.
Todd Ambachtsheer from Toronto, Canada writes:
I commend Mr. Green for taking an issue in women's
health.However, his concerns are a little misplaced in this
instance.The piece in question has nothing to do with women's health
(or at the very limit, it is tangential).Rather, the story has all to
do with alleged censorship of a journal which is related to a
surpervising body.
Also, we do not know that the panel is entirely composed of
men.The story did not make this clear.It simply said that other members
were men.
* Posted Dec. 12, 2005 at 5:52 PM EST
* Link to Comment
4.
Joanne Buda from United States writes: Apart from the censorship
issue, just what was the Canadian Pharmacists Association planning to
do with the information they were gathering...use the names & addresses
for marketing? Shame on them! Next time this happens, every woman in
Canada should go and buy the product, just to make the database so
allinclusive as to render it useless.
* Posted Dec. 12, 2005 at 6:35 PM EST
* Link to Comment
5.
Douglas Ford from Kingston, Canada writes: Women are right to be
concerned about pharmacists collecting personal health information when
they purchase Plan B. In 2004, my colleagues and I published a paper in
the CMAJ entitled "The confidentiality of physician and patient
information in pharmacy prescription records"
(http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/170/5/815).Prescription data
streams from the computer systems of community pharmacies with scant
regard for physician and patient confidentiality.Commercial data
compilers then sell this data and related analyses.
* Posted Dec. 12, 2005 at 7:12 PM EST
* Link to Comment
|